User talk:Jimbo Wales

Stable Wikipedia?

I recently returned as an editor, as practically everyone knows, and I have started looking at the suite of philosophy articles. They are all in need of attention, and it is beyond any single person’s abilities to put them all right. It’s partly because there aren’t enough editors with even an elementary education in philosophy. I think it’s also because philosophy, more than any other subject, is considered as a subject that anyone can edit on. The reality is that competence is required here just as in mathematics or astrophysics, but no one has been told this. If you look at the talk page of the article on Free will, you will get a headache. See also the complaint here about the article Socrates. No professional philosophers (who have deadlines on papers and whose contributions to Wikipedia have no CV value) will want to build any sandcastles on the shore here. Astonishingly, it was an early featured article in 2004 so, contrary to the theory of Wikipedia, entropy is increasing.

I am not the first person to suggest this, but why not have a system where specialist writers can develop an article in a the traditional way, i.e. not everyone can edit, the product will to be a defined format and with a defined target readership, no forest of citations but with proper peer review, and in a separate area. Then 'release' the stable article using a link at the top of the current article. That way it does not interfere with the current editorial system of 'anyone can edit', and it gives Wikipedia readers the choice of the stable peer reviewed version versus the current version. By default, the current version would be the one the reader would see, although the link to the stable version would be prominent. Perhaps you could get readers to vote on which version they preferred.

Before anyone objects that 'Nupedia tried this and it didn't work', I will point them to the excellent Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy, which is a rough contemporary of Wikipedia, and which has successfully grown into more than 2,000 excellent articles. I am not saying that Wikipedia articles should look like that, because SEP target readership is not the general public, I am merely saying a traditional approach is viable. Also, Nupedia and Wikipedia never properly merged as a two-track system, even though this approach has been successfully used in traditional encyclopedias for centuries. I.e. be broad in many places, be deep where it matters. Commonly this is done by 'flagship articles', namely which cover a single vital subject in some depth. Free will is a level 3 article, and it should not be in the mess that it clearly is.

Could the WMF support such an initiative? Who could I approach? Peter Damian (talk) 07:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

It is always a mistake to look to WMF as a potential savior in matters of content; that's going to come from the community. It will take you a while to get reintegrated, to establish a reputation for high competence, to find others with competence in the subject matter, and to collectively figure out what are and are not problems. My suggestion would be to write, write, and write some more — not about "big" topics like Free will, which will always be contentious and which will likely always attract crank perspectives and controversy, but about topics farther off the beaten path. This doesn't only apply to philosophy, it is equally true for history or politics or what have you: don't waste time or effort on huge and controversial topics, which will always be contentious and tainted by POV-pushers, do serious work on the edges.

As for the idea of creating a means of more or less "locking the thread" once a certain level of completeness and excellence is achieved, that is likely to be a highly controversial change proposal and will take every molecule of political capital that can be mustered. Take some time to build some. best, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 12:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Peter, what is the name of the fallacy where inferences are drawn from a single datum as anecdote, e.g., "contrary to the theory of Wikipedia, entropy is increasing," as opposed to a statistically sound survey? Why don't you just make improvements and defend them like every other editor, instead of trying to exclude others the moment you get re-included? EllenCT (talk) 14:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ellen no one will be excluded. The idea is to have two separate (possibly competing) tracks. The default version will be the standard ‘anyone can edit’ version. On a ‘statistically sound survey’ I have done more work than this one example but I agree: if the WMF has any commitment to quality, it should be commissioning work like this. I also have a table here comparing the Nupedia style approach of the SEP with the corresponding version in Wikipedia. Peter Damian (talk) 17:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, be careful that your abduction is not affected by confirmation bias. I have a feeling you would be just as well served to simply make ordinary improvements and then create a custom watchlist query (like this one I use to keep an eye on econ article changes) to help you and your colleagues maintain quality over time. EllenCT (talk) 20:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

And @Tim again, why do you suggest not writing on flagship articles, i.e. vital articles? Why can't Wikipedia compete with leviathans like SEP? Peter Damian (talk) 17:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

@Peter Damian -The Wikipedia model simply does not work well for large, contentious topics. There are multitudes of changes that come and go, with POV pushers galore fighting over the content. Experts should contribute where they have expertise and leave the half-educated anonymous warriorism of "big" topics for others to get worked up over. Carrite (talk) 18:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the encyclopedia everyone can edit. You're looking for a different project. When you go to McDonald's, do you order foie gras? Townlake (talk) 17:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

No, but it would be nice to have a restaurant next door at the same price, and where you could see if the food was better :) Peter Damian (talk) 18:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I can and do see some reason to maybe make some articles on major topics, which get a lot of dubious edits, under some form of semi-protection or pending changes. These would include major topical articles in any number of fields. However, for that to happen, I also think it would be reasonable, and probably required by the community, to have several things happen first. I also tend to think that "pending changes" would probably be preferable of the two options.

1) To the greatest degree possible, establish and bring to a sufficient level of quality the basic spinout articles, which would include all those articles which have a clear "Main article" heading relating to them in the parent article. The level of quality aimed at would probably be the point at which it is clear what subtopics are covered in that spinout, and which aren't. This could probably extend to those spinout articles which themselves have further spinout articles, presumably under the same circumstances.

2) As a condition of the above, check to see what all the requisite spinout articles would be. This would, presumably, be done by consulting reference works of some sort directly relating to whichever article is being spunout.

3) Have some sort of template automatically appear in the edit box indicating that (ideally) the article should only be edited to reflect updates in information already contained in it, or improvement of references, or general housekeeping, but not to add additional information. The template might go on to say something like "please add additional information first to one of the spinout articles" and seek to include the new content only after that spinout is developed to a fairly NPOV level regarding that content.

Now, this would, of course, all be dependent on ensuring that the basic main article is already at a reasonable level of quality. That would probably best be achieved by consulting the most directly relevant recent reference sources. But it might, maybe, theoretically, be workable at some point. It would, however, probably need to have some way to establish at least the three conditions above as easily workable first. John Carter (talk) 17:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

John I am not sure we are talking about the same thing. I am suggesting that the main (current) 'anyone can edit' article stays exactly as it is, i.e. anyone can edit it. However, at the top of the article there will be a 'stable article' button that the interested reader can press, and see the stable version. There could also be another button that diff'd to the main version. This would not be intrusive on the way Wikipedia currently operates, and it would provide a better experience for the reader, because they have more choice. And it would not be an exercise in 'exclusion' as one person suggested above. Quite the opposite: everyone could edit the main page, as before. Peter Damian (talk) 18:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Such is already more or less available on the article talk pages though, at least for any article which has ever been at a good level like GA or so. And, for some articles in particular, it would probably be a mistake to use such a function. Such an example might be if the last "stable version" of the article on the Catholic Church was written when John Paul II was pope and talked about him in that capacity. And there would be some reasonable question as to determining who would determine when an article is "stable." So, for instance, would an academic in physics who just doesn't like a new theory in his field be able to tag the article with whatever idea he doesn't like as the last "stable" version? And, if the last "stable" version weren't that good in general, would it be "stable"? I can and do see some advantage to, maybe, trying to get the "topical" editors in any field together to get the main topical articles in that field up to a reasonable level of quality, at least in terms of content, maybe less so in referencing or grammar or whatever. But you would still need to develop a specific list of criteria for what is and is not a stable version, and have some sort of review process to finalize it. That's kinda the way it works here. I'd like to see it, and I could certainly see adding some sort of template icon to the article page with maybe a file cabinet icon or something which would link to the last "stable version" as determined through review. But I know from experience with Biography A-Class review finding such people willing to do that sort of thing to the degree that would be required here is difficult at best on its own. John Carter (talk) 18:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I must say that en.Wikipedia as it stands does have severe problems. I do also edit within de.Wikipedia and must say it runs far more stable and smooth. It is only after a certain number of edits, that have been checked by already registered editors, any new editor can edit articles “freely” in de.Wikipedia. This would put an end to somewhat dubious and explicit IP-edits and would allow new editors to undergo a certain learning curve. This process would not mean edits by unregistered editors are turned down they just have to be given a clear. In recent years we battle each other with guidelines which in the long run hampers us to work on content. A certain quality control to what edit makes it to the eyes of the one seeking information might not be a bad idea. In effect this would mean to put ALL articles under WP:PCPP.--Catflap08 (talk) 18:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't want all articles to be under pending changes, given the ridiculous number of stubs we have here. But I could agree that, as a possibility, any article rated at "C" class or better which doesn't have any quality tags might, not unreasonably, be subject to pending changes. The one question I can see to this would be finding out just how many pages that would mean on a regular basis, and consequently how much of the time of the average senior editor capable of approving pending changes would be devoted to reviewing such changes on a regular basis. If the average admin or senior editor had to spend, on average, two hours a day going through pending changes still not approved or rejected on articles on his watch list, I tend to think that enthusiasm for wikipedia would very likely drop pretty damn fast. John Carter (talk) 19:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

All I am saying is to maybe use existing protecting levels to allow for things to quiet down and concentrate on what we all came her in the first place – maybe a six months test run. Having said what I said is with my own experience on subjects anything else but uncontroversial. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:18, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Peter, your "stable version" is evidently intended to exclude unhelpful "improvements" by Randy from Boise, but do you envisage the "stable version" as permanently forked and diverging from the "open editing" version? If not, how do they keep in touch, so that real improvements to one feed in to the other?

Also, where do you find the specialised writers? Who decides who is, or is not, qualified, and on what basis? In specialist fields where there are competing views and factions, how do we avoid one faction getting control of the selection process, so that the specialist panel reflects their POV? Even if philosophy is a field where there is such general consensus that the specialist panel would have no serious disagreements, there are not many fields like that. Consider the process of selecting the specialist writer panels for alternative medicine, Israel/Palestine, Gamergate, Scientology... JohnCD (talk) 20:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Let's avoid any talk of "stable" versions, which brings back all the chaotic debate around pending changes: the idea here seems to instead be "reviewed permalinks". I think there's a good case for it as an improvement on our existing article assessment system. Why don't we have the ability to review particular revisions and mark them as meeting certain quality levels? I'm imagining in particular a lightweight system where newer revisions of good/featured articles could be marked as still meeting the criteria—or, perhaps, as needing a bit of polishing for maintenance—based on the diff from the last reviewed version. I think the idea's worth exploring. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 20:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the problems indicated above would continue with this quicker system though. I can and do see it as being really useful to have more people involved in GA and FA and the like, and would love to see enough such people to make the processes ones which could have a kind of automatic review every six months, for instance. But questions of how to deal with such GA/FA articles on broad subjects which have significant changes in their subtopics, even if not within the main topic, are going to present problems. I remember Nishidani once asking whether we theoretically would have to update an article on the publication of every new encyclopedia which might mention it. I think the answer would have to be, unfortunately, "yes". And this would include encyclopedias on topics which are tangentially related to the main topic in some way. An example might be the status of housecats as housepets in some Asian country, particularly if there are some sort of recent governmental changes in same. Getting more people who have at least decent access to reference works in GA and FA review would help a lot, and I would love to see that happen. I'm personally, at least, trying to make it easier for people to find relevant reference works, which is sometimes one of the big problems. I like the idea, but I think we are probably at least a bit away from having the structure in place, both in terms of number of involved good editors and access to relevant sources to make implementation of anything soon problematic. John Carter (talk) 20:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

---

Nihiltres has it absolutely right. Reviewed permalinks. John CD raises all the obvious problems about editorial governance. Regarding contributors, I can't speak for any subject apart from philosophy, but I know many of the specialist editors from the old days i.e. pre-2007 and I think they could be coaxed back if they could be persuaded there would be minimal 'Randy' problems. Editorial governance would be one to think carefully about. There could only be one 'reviewed permalink', to avoid the problem of forking permalinks. I will be away a bit, but thanks for the useful comments. Peter Damian (talk) 21:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

@Peter Damian: It's an interesting idea, but I suspect that using the existing Wikipedia mechanisms, while exhausting and sometimes fruitless, may be the only way to deal with the issues that you describe. The problem is that many editors who can barely tie their own shoes view themselves as supremely competent, and that administrators are often not that much better. Coretheapple (talk) 15:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, can a Wikipedia compete with the Stanford authored control system? I don't think it is set up for that - and don't see it happening. However, what is already doable and useful to Wiki readers is to link to the Stanford article in the external links section of the Wiki article - that would seem to better serve whatever function there is of a locked un-bylined, anon reviewed, wiki-article (for a similar type resource on a different type of article that is often also linked in WP external sections see [1] from the University of Virginia, all with a named academic editor; there are no doubt more such useful types to link to on most important (and even some arcane) topics. 18:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I doubt we will ever be able to compete directly with the Stanford or the Macmillan/Gale Encyclopedia of Philosophy or any of the other leading reference works in their fields. What we can probably do better than them, however, is cover content to a greater depth than they do. They, probably even the Stanford, have some space limitations, we don't. We could generate theoretically full-length FAs on every work by every author in the field. I doubt any of the print encyclopedias could. So, while it is still the case in a lot of content of a global nature that our thematic overview articles either kind of suck or in some cases don't even exist yet, we can probably do a much better job of covering at length the individual works of philosophers, and possibly probably their lives, particularly if they were ever notable for anything other than philosophy, and the like. We also, at least theoretically, can probably host all the older PD encyclopedias or reference works of a broadly philosophical nature over at commons or wikisource, possibly with the sections or chapters fully transcribed for easier use and downloading. I think I started adding all the old philosophy encyclopedias that were still included as relevant in the 1980s Sheehy guide to reference to the Bibliography of encyclopedias pages, and that older material, even if some of it is outdated through better manuscripts being found or better biographies written, is also something that the Stanford probably doesn't now and never will have. John Carter (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. Wikipedia has always been better at the more obscure articles, which often aren't covered elsewhere, but once the "lesser" articles are covered then it becomes easier to write the bigger articles. The problem with articles in the more respected encyclopedias is that they're written by one expert, who will have a particular point of view. I could, for instance, point to several Oxford Dictionary of National Biography articles where the WP version is superior to the ODNB's offering. Eric Corbett 19:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

You have a good point regarding the obviously separate "minor" articles. I guess I should specificy that what I meant by minor articles might be something like Historiography of the concept of free will or History of study of free will or something like that, along with individual books by individual experts in the field. Particularly for really complicated articles, those might be easier to write than the main ones, because of the sheer amount which could be included in the main article and all the related WEIGHT problems. And I for one have no reservations about saying that I'm not sure any single print reference source is necessarily better than ours, by and large, unless other sources have specifically said that about their content. So, for instance, the SEP apparently doesn't have a separate article on the City of God (book). We would clearly be in a position to be able to provide articles of that type, possibly better than their own, which in that case isn't a separate article yet. Personally, I've always favored finding the longest reference article possible on a topic to use as a starting point, and given the frankly incredible number of extant reference works/encyclopedias out there, many in the PD, we could be in a position to use the information from them to provide a much broader range of coverage than the SEP does. John Carter (talk) 16:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• Nupedia ain't the example where it was tried and failed. Veropedia and Citizendium are the examples where it was tried and failed. As must as free will being an FA is held up as an example of entropy increasing, take a look at it - it wouldn't have a snowball in a gasoline suit in hell's chance of being an FA today. Quality has increased so much from 2004 that our best content then is hum-drum today. It's true we do a pretty bad job at a lot of the "highest-level" articles. They're harder to write than the biography of one person or sum-such. Which isn't to say a "stable versions" isn't worth trying. But it's worth being familiar with the previous attempts that have failed before re-inventing the wheel (to be optimistic, or squaring the circle, to be pessimistic). WilyD 08:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • My point was that Free will has got worse since 2004 not because standards have increased, but because it has actually got worse.Peter Damian (talk) 14:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • On Veropedia and Citizendium, sure it can be argued that they failed. But my opening point was that SEP and also the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy have succeeded. Peter Damian (talk) 14:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
    • I understood the opening point you were trying to make, but it's wrong. Free Will hasn't actually gotten worse. The grade has gone down, but because the standards are much higher. Sure, I got an A+ in grade 3 math, and an A- in 2nd year undergraduate vector calculus, but that doesn't mean I got worse at math as I got older (I did get worse at math as I got older, of course, but not until I after I stopped doing coursework during my Ph.D.)
    • Veropedia (and I think Citizendium) are defunct. So, I think you'd be hard-pressed to argue they didn't fail. SEP, IEP, Scholarpedia are essentially traditional encyclopaedias put on the internet, they're not exactly role models for Wikipedia - . Veropedia & Citizendium are the appropriate role models (or perhaps, warnings) for us because they started with Wikipedia and aimed to do the kind of thing you're proposing. SEP, IEP, Scholarpedia ... well, looking at the design of Formula 1 cars is a bad way to figure out how to make your horse go faster. WilyD 09:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Veropedia and Citizendium tried to do everything at once, and failed. What's wrong with a two-speed approach. Develop quality flagship articles slowly, using more traditional methods (which we agree can work), without disturbing the processes where Wikipedia has been incredibly successful? Also, please trust me, Free will has got much worse. Peter Damian (talk) 18:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
        • It's hard to trust you that it's gotten much worse when I can compare the two myself and see that that's not true. Citizendium & Scholarpedia's decisions to both restart with no content and severely restrict the editor base necessarily meant they were going to grow a lot slower. It's my impression that the people jumping in didn't really appreciate that, that there's an impression among editors here that the highly-active regulars are generating most of the content, so it'd be easy to siphon off enough content creation. Veropedia didn't actually try to do very much, and mostly fell out because Wikipedia was first to market, so you're only going to poach the readership if you can offer a much superior product in their eyes, which it didn't. Of course, advertising might've helped - if we linked Scholarpedia articles at the top of pages, which is more or less what you're suggesting, they'd have more visibility. (Or perhaps there's some other purpose, but if SEP is already doing this well, why duplicate their efforts?) WilyD 08:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

A counterexample, in part The article English language has long been protected from edits by persons other than autoconfirmed registered users. It is a top 500 article in terms of page views. Even at that, it was a dog of an article for years, failing GA review and receiving a very thorough peer review that was then ignored for years. I've developed an interest in elevating article quality of high-page-view articles, and on 30 November 2014, I visited the article talk page of English language to propose raising that article up to good article status. I then relentlessly asked each editor committing edits to that article to mention sources for the edits, and repeatedly asked on the article talk page about what sources would be good for improving the article. As soon as the focus turned from unsupported personal opinions to verifiable information from sources, many formerly hotly edit-warred issues were resolved. As the March 2015 Core contest began, Maunus (the peer reviewer of the article years earlier) decided to join Erutuon (an editor who was beginning detailed updates of the phonology section of the article by then) to fix the whole article from top to bottom. I too joined in on fixing three formerly contentious sections of the article, and English language passed good article review a few weeks ago. It can be done. Editors have to agree with one another to rely on reliable sources to fix articles. I made multiple trips to my friendly local university library to check out books to have at hand in my home office as I fixed English language. Anyone who can circulate books from a good library could do the same. A few editors in agreement that good sources matter can make a huge difference in an article that has lain fallow for many years. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 13:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Depends on what you mean by "can be done." Have controlled identity and recognized experts author and publicly sign articles? Have recognized experts publicly review, edit, and pass articles? Or, have "people on the internet" "do good" and say, "yah, good" to each-other, whomever each-other is. The later is already done, but it's not a counter-example process to Stanford's. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• I think that you may find that one advantage of the decline in editing is that articles are less subject to entropy than when you were last editing. My experience is that good text with lots of references is actually pretty stable (and most articles are far too stable, ie never improved). Some maintenance is of course necessary, & having other editors helping with this makes a big difference. Johnbod (talk) 14:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• I think we are also, particularly with the GA and FA reviewers, getting better at finding out not just what "people on the internet" think, but people on the internet who have some idea of the material in recent reference sources and have compared our content to them think. Granted, there aren't many reference sources on Taylor Swift to compare things to, and there are a lot of topics and subtopics that fall in the same general field, but for those which are significant enough and, well, old enough to have been discussed at some length in recent reference sources, the GA and FA candidates, and at least a few others that get any sort of review, get at least that attention. I wish there were more of it, of course, but it is at least getting better a little in some areas. John Carter (talk) 15:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment

Thanks to everyone for the interesting and thought provoking comments above. I note Jimmy hasn't commented yet, but I hope he will, as I am quoting him below.

• "Veropedia and Citizendium are the examples where it was tried and failed". I am not sure what 'it' is here. I was on the ground when Citizendium started (I don't know about Veropedia) the reason it failed, at least for my specialism, was it couldn’t attract enough experts. I worked with Peter King for a bit, but then he had some kind of spat with Larry, I left because he left, and as far as I know it never recovered. Incidentally the Citizendium article Free will, which is very bad, was written by exactly the same person who is now intent on entropizing the Wikipedia article of the same name.
• "looking at the design of Formula 1 cars is a bad way to figure out how to make your horse go faster." I suppose 'Formula 1' is meant to be SEP, with Wikipedia the 'horse'? Why so? This document explains the SEP funding model, which (if I have read it correctly) uses a tiny $200,000 per annum, mostly to cover costs of a small editorial board. By contrast, Wikipedia raises tens of millions, potentially hundreds of millions, per annum. Wikipedia already has the potential to be Formula 1. How did SEP attract suitable volunteers?
  • The actual contributors are not paid, but my impression is that Zalta (managing editor) is passionately dedicated to building relationships and partnerships with specialist contributors, and by attracting a critical mass of such contributors and thus creating a reputation for SEP, he was able to attract others. "Academics are snobs, almost without exception and whether they admit it or not. If our goal is to be the only intellectually respectable encyclopedia on the web, then we must cater for that snobbery whether we like it or not and whether it's right or not. Otherwise, the experts we so desperately need simply will not feel inclined to write for us." [Michael Kulikowski, Nupedia mailing list Aug 25 10:12:00 2000]
  • With Jimmy concurring: "Maybe we could install the wiki under a totally different brand name, and just let people who sign up for Nupedia aware that lots of Nupedians tend to hang out there. That way, we separate the wiki from the Nupedia brand name. It is very important to all of us who have an emotional stake in Nupedia that we not harm the reputation of Nupedia. Nupedia, in my mind, _stands for something_ -- quality in an age of declining standards, openness in an age of mad scrambling for proprietariness." [Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 18:38:11 -0600 From: Jimmy Wales jwales@aristotle.bomis.com]
  • Why shouldn't some of the massive Wikipedia budget be used to employ someone like Zalta? A qualified managing editor for a subject, or small group of subjects, whose job would be to manage the 'flagship article' process? This is how it is actually done in traditional encyclopedias – employ a small number of specialists to write a small number of vital articles, with the rest of the work written by generalists.
  • Can volunteers work with paid employees? Let me quote Jimmy again. "I recently became a Red Cross volunteer. In the Red Cross, volunteers and paid employees work side-by-side doing the same jobs. They need paid employees to ensure a certain level of reliability and consistency. They need volunteers to magnify their efforts beyond the level of what cash donations can provide" [2] Suppose the WMF chose to divert some of its annual budget to employ 10 managing editors of the quality of Zalta. That would cost $2m, based on those figures. Is that very much?
• "what is already doable and useful to Wiki readers is to link to the Stanford article in the external links section of the Wiki article". Three reasons against
  • It's a cop out, on the lines of 'formula 1' versus 'horse'.
  • Linking to the SEP article loses what is most valuable about the wiki, namely the efficient dynamic linking. Why can't we combine the effectiveness of the traditional peer review process with what is best about the wiki?
  • The SEP target audience is not suitable for Wikipedia, in my view. Nearly all of the articles are too difficult for the kind of general readership that is attracted to Wikipedia.
• The Free Will article is not getting worse because the standards have risen, it is simply getting worse, even by the original standards. (I also think that the change in standards, such as excessive citation, does not necessarily mean 'better'.

Peter Damian (talk) 17:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

You implied that you have some statistical evidence that your recommendation has not been affected by confirmation bias. I'm not convinced and would like to see it, please. EllenCT (talk) 21:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Rules of Wikipedia were violated for the good of Russian murderers

Hello Jimbo. Supporters of Russian murderers (Ukraine) block users without any reason (fake reasons). Please take action vs them! They must restore deleted edits. The situation is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Dmitry_Medvedev&action=history (Dmitry Medvedev). - Rome12345 (talk) 21:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC).

This was dealt with here, but Need1521 simply refuses to get the point. This sock puppet was blocked earlier here. Please block this sock. Valenciano (talk) 22:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

He's blocked.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• Nice to meet you! Thank you for the protection to our Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev! I say thanks on behalf of a lot citizens of Russia and on behalf of our government (in some meaning, because Im simple man). Crimea became Russian on legal grounds. If somebody very bad man - this can be said about Obama and Harper (their Europenian team also)! Putin once said: Russia can not lose any war (history knows). And even on English Wikipedia, Medvedev and Putin are winners in battle of edits. Putin is number one: http://www.forbes.com/profile/vladimir-putin/ (says the Forbes). He stronger of any Obama. Thank you else time Jimbo! - Black2255 (talk) 21:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC).

Yeah, you tell 'em Blacko! World politics has come such a long way since 1984, hasn't it. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure being number 1 in powerful people is always a good thing. The trouble is dictators tend to get to that position, having all powerful leaders doesn't help democracy particularly.

Something I've always wondered: why does Vladimir Putin have 39 pictures of him in it, many in "heroic" poses? Isn't that a bit excessive? --Jules (Mrjulesd) 14:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Are the 36 pictures of George W. Bush in our biography of him also excessive? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Can't you just leave those two alone?! It's obvious they had something really special and beautiful going on. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC) (... if that really was them, of course... )

Yeah I think you're right, a special relationship is blooming. Needs a caption like "make love not nuclear war" or something... --Jules (Mrjulesd) 01:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• Somebody here has ill head (Need1521 was against Medvedev). Black2255 - a defender of Medvedev. Stranger2552 (talk) 21:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Disaster relief donations

Jimbo,

Wikipedia is increasingly the go-to source of information in times of global disasters.

I think it is appropriate, and not in conflict with the goals of Wikipedia, to provide limited external links to appropriate organizations where people can donate to relief efforts.

I realise the importance of keeping external links to a minimum, but I do feel that this is an important special case.

Complications include knowing the appropriate sites - being especially careful to avoid scams. It can be difficult to know the best organizations, especially globally, to give. But I'm confident that the vast majority of us accept that organizations such as UNICEF, Red Cross, CARE, and so on are internationally accepted as being legitimate. Also I can imagine potential arguments over disasters that relate to political incidents (wars, and so forth).

But surely, in the interests of doing good, we can come to a consensus that helping readers who wish donate to countries in desperate need, following earthquakes and suchlike, is a Good Thing.

Perhaps it is something that Wikimedia Foundation could help with - by providing a way to put a single 'Donations' link (perhaps) on such articles, directing users appropriately - possibly via a WMF page listing some of the most major international relief organization links. Thus perhaps it is something that could be driven by the power of Jimbo?

I know the issue isn't totally straight-forward, but it could make a tremendous difference, if we can make it easy for readers to give a little, in times of global disasters.

For reference only, for clarity - and not wishing to debate my own edits - I'll mention that I tried adding links to the 2015 Nepal earthquake, which were removed [3]. But I'd like us to discuss the issue in general terms, for future articles - not that specific case

I feel that if - God forbid - there was a large-scale emergency in the USA, people (here) would push for this more strongly.

Thanks for your consideration. 88.104.18.134 (talk) 18:18, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

See User:Wavelength/About society/Ethical options.—Wavelength (talk) 18:55, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

There are around 1.5 million nonprofit organizations in the USA alone.[4] Making an exception for UNICEF etc is well meaning, but it might annoy the smaller charities.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

It might; and that may be unavoidable. But they're probably equally annoyed about the links given by websites such as CNN, the BBC, Reddit, Google, etc.

I don't think that's a good enough reason to do nothing. We could maybe come to an agreement about which to use through consensus - or, it could be driven by WMF? It might be possible to make a policy or something, to use in general for such cases.

I actually believe that such a link fits within 'encyclopaedic value'. My feeling is that a fair proportion of people reading about a current e.g. Earthquake would find a link to make a donation useful.

It's radically different from what we'd usually call a 'spam link' - it's more like the allowable official external links in company/org articles. I know there is no truly 'official' place to donate, but quibbling over that seems pedantic in comparison with the potential for good.

I know their could be contention over more minor charities, but surely few of us object to people wanting to give a little via e.g. Medicines Sans Frontiers or OXFAM? In fact, I doubt other charities would mind either; I suspect they'd welcome people giving via any method, not just their own. 88.104.18.134 (talk) 19:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

This seems like a dangerous slippery slope here. Is there really anyone who is going to go to the Wikipedia article trying to find information for how to donate? --B (talk) 19:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

If I Google "Nepal Earthquake" I am bombarded with several different advertisements from various charitable organizations who want me to donate, information on charities isn't hard to find if people are looking for it. Wikipedia is not a place to promote specific charities over others. Winner 42 Talk to me! 19:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia deals with the 'slippery slope' problem in the EL section of other articles through discussion and consensus on what is a reasonable number of links to help the reader without becoming excessive. I see no reason that can't work for disaster-relief donations.88.104.18.134 (talk) 20:34, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Someone reading about this Earthquake may well find a link useful. I don't think that the fact they can find it elsewhere is a fair argument in accord with any policy or guideline.

In addition, the links you find elsewhere may well include scams - unofficial sites where donations will never reach their intended targets. Wikipedia has the opportunity to only provide links which are genuine, internationally-recognized, and trustworthy. 88.104.18.134 (talk) 20:34, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree with that and I don't think Wikipedia ought to be in the business of advocating for things. I didn't agree with it when Wikipedia openly campaigned for its preferred public policy in Protests against SOPA and PIPA#Wikimedia community and I don't agree with it now. There are lots of worthwhile causes and lots of causes not so worthwhile. How do you pick which ones Wikipedia should openly advocate for? Hundreds of thousands of people have been killed in the War in Darfur. Should Wikipedia advocate for them too? Category:2015 disasters and its subcategories have lots of entries. Which of them are worth Wikipedia's advocacy and which are not? --B (talk) 22:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't see this as advocacy any more than providing a link to the website of articles about a museum, a movie, a political organization, a company, or anything else. We are not making a choice about the worthiness of donating - merely providing the information for those that might wish to donate.

With regards Darfur, I mentioned political incidents in my original comments. I am not saying this will be an easy decision in every case, but I believe in the power of discussion and consensus to sort out such issues. Worthwhile things are often not so easy.

I doubt anyone here is objecting to the principle of people donating to aid relief in the recent Earthquake; the question is about whether Wikipedia can make that a little easier for them, by providing a link. I don't think that such a link is in conflict with the goals of Wikipedia.88.104.18.134 (talk) 23:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

'Unarchived' just once, to give a little more time, hoping for a response. 88.104.18.134 (talk) 00:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

See "Humanitarian response to the 2015 Nepal earthquake".—Wavelength (talk) 00:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I favor including an external link to a notable charity's website in our article about that charity, which is our standard practice. I oppose including such links anywhere else, such as in an article about an earthquake. Wikipedia editors do not have the competence to judge that this particular group of ten charities deserve a link, and those other 20 or 30 charies are unworthy of a link (or a donation). There are organizations with websites that specialize in evaluating charities. Leave that work to them. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I think it is reasonable to note that the UN has launched an emergency appeal UN Appeal and also an external link to the UN appeal website UNOCHA Nepal website would be entirely appropriate. Linking to the United Nations does not open the door to including links to any old charity website. --_nonsense ferret 01:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

There's also a practical consideration: very few websites can handle the load of traffic that we throw at them, even just by adding a link. Don't underestimate the crushing power of traffic from Wikipedia. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 09:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Since we are likely to consider doing this so rarely, would it be ever such a lot of effort for WMF to reach out to the UN as a courtesy beforehand to get their preferred link for this purpose? This would resolve any worries about capacity I'm sure. Building our relationship with these organisations can only be a good thing --_nonsense ferret 23:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

The need you're trying to address is actually quite large even by Wikipedia standards. According to The Washington Post, the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs has an outstanding appeal for $18.67 billion in funds, of which donors have contributed $3.27 billion, i.e. less than 20%. This is much, much larger than what Wikipedia pulls in with its yearly banner campaign. In order for Wikipedia to make a serious dent, it would need to multiply its force through some kind of political action, i.e. mobilizing readers to write to their governments and call for greater funding of humanitarian causes. However, such an effort would not be uncontentious, since some of us have unaddressed issues of homelessness, poverty and violence in our own countries and may be reluctant to risk scarce funds being lost to obstructive customs, corrupt officials and outright theft by terrorists. In the meanwhile, there is no reason why any article about a disaster cannot say "The UN,^[1] and Oxfam,^[2] have put out an urgent appeal for aid", linking to both organizations as simple citations. These (and many others) are reliable sources. It may not be as prominent as an external link at the end, but the use of ELs is severely bureaucratized by this point, and their position after the references section means that much of the time I don't notice them at all anyway. I think simply treating calls for donations as routine data and leaving it to editor discretion to cite them as primary sources may be the most productive approach that will actually fly, though I could be wrong. Wnt (talk) 13:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Please remember, I asked about putting an external link to donation/appeals on articles about large-scale natural disasters such as Earthquakes.

Philippe, "few websites can handle the load of traffic" - has that ever been a consideration in deciding whether to add an external link on an article? And do you really think a charity will object to getting too many people donating?

Wnt, I don't think that's an appropriate use of references - they're not being used as sources. I read [[WP:ELRC], and notice it says external links can include "websites that are specifically devoted to the topic" - which would cover some types of donation website, but not all. 22:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.18.134 (talk)

I won't argue against using external links to note these sites, but merely note I find it frustrating. There are people who love to just go through and take them out. There is similar obstructivism regarding primary sources, but not as often, and I put a higher priority on opposing it in general. When the secondary sources about the topic mention some primary source - whether it is an author's website, a call for donations, an original paper documenting a scientific discovery, a controversial "tweet", or a beheading video - I always think it's important to cite it directly so that a reader can readily evaluate whatever it is. After all, for readers like me, much of the time we are only using the Wikipedia article as a path to find the original source. Wnt (talk) 00:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I agree. But I think it would be a 'good thing' if - for articles like the one about the current earthquake crisis in Nepal - we could have a limited number (even just 1) external link to 'Donate'. I think that would be useful to readers, and I think it is acceptable within the goals of Wikipedia. That's all.

My reason for asking Jimbo was, I'd like us to maybe come up with a policy/guideline, an agreement, so that that could happen.

Cullen above pointed out, there's "organizations with websites that specialize in evaluating charities" - great, so why can't we use those to decide which to permit?

User B pointed out there's lots of disasters (Category:2015 disasters) including political issues - OK, so can't we limit it to 'natural disasters' or something?

I think this is worthwhile, I hope we can work through the problems and come to an agreement.88.104.18.134 (talk) 03:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

As the wise old man of wikipedia - or anyway the old man of wikipedia - I'll just point out that there was a massive and very interesting discussion around this when Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans nearly 10 years ago. Lots of websites (more than normal) were running special advertisements for the Red Cross and similar. But it was concluded (and as I recall, as I argued) that this was a pretty bad case of US-centrism. But what came out of the discussion was the idea that doing ad hoc appeals in emergencies was fraught with complications and difficulties and if it is even possible at all, some reasonable process must exist for it to be fair.

But a lot has happened since then, including "strikes" against bad legislation in several Wikipedia languages including Italian, English, and Russian, with mostly successful results. These were organized in relatively short order and while nothing is ever quite 100%, the community in general seems quite happy with the result.

I have always said that we are more than just a highly technical effort - Wikipedia is a moral statement about the kind of world we would like to live in. I see room for action in this kind of situation, but rather than having this conversation at the moment of emergency, where all the usual complexities tend to weigh against action of any kind, I'd rather see us have a more focussed and serious conversation about how we ought to use our invisible and unused power to put things on the global agenda in a major way.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. When and where? 88.104.18.134 (talk) 02:38, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I have started Wikipedia:Global agenda "for setting out policies and guidelines related to Wikipedia and the use of its power and influence for addressing global issues" [revised: "for setting out a plan for using the power of Wikipedia to address global challenges"]. However, Wikipedians vary widely in their beliefs and values, with various areas of overlap. Therefore, there could be many resignations by Wikipedians in protest, if details are not decided carefully. Also, it should be noted that some Wikipedians may choose to abstain from political issues.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC) and 22:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC) and 03:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC) and 13:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Should I put something there about the above - donations for earthquakes? Or on the talk page? 88.104.23.173 (talk) 17:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Global agenda has been nominated for deletion, and your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Global agenda. If the result of that discussion is a decision to keep or move the page, then you can comment on the talk page.

—Wavelength (talk) 23:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Funds Dissemination Committee

Regarding the banner I've been seeing, that says The Wikimedia Foundation Funds Dissemination Committee advises on how millions of WMF funds are spent. Click here to participate in the election of its members. With a bit of digging, I found m:Grants:APG/Funds Dissemination Committee, which is a subpage of m:Grants:APG, so I assume that this committee advises on Individual Engagement, Project and Event, and Annual Plan Grants. None of these, as best as I can determine, are directly related to maintaining and improving the content and infrastructure of the English Wikipedia (and I'm unclear on the extent that these grants are even indirectly related to that). These grants don't seem that relevant to me, and I find it difficult to even begin to make an informed decision on how to vote. What I feel that I can make an informed decision on, it doesn't seem like there is any vehicle for voting on who decides that. That's frustrating to me. Wbm1058 (talk) 03:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Most of the programs and grants that are funded pertain directly to content (including outreach, etc). But a good example of a direct result you can see is Wikidata which was constructed as a project of Wikimedia Deutschland – which in turns get a fair chunk of its financing from the Foundation. — Coren ^(talk) 14:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm neither a defender nor an advocate of the FDC process - I'm an observer and I see things I like and things I don't like. The only real comment I have here is to respond to Wbm1058's specific inquiry about "English Wikipedia" - just to point out that it seems unwise for the FDC or the Foundation generally to elevate English Wikipedia in funding considerations. Give it due consideration of course, but we aren't a dot-com following the ad revenues, so the next million readers in Southeast Asia (to pick a region) should be just as important as the next million readers in English speaking countries.

As to the broader question of process and voting and all that, I'm all ears about how it could be improved, since I believe it certainly could.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Paid editing question

So, there's a user named @Chrisabraham: who is a paid editor for clients such as well known Scientologist Michael Doven and the controversial corporation Chick-Fil-A. Chris is open about his affliations and seems like an all around great guy. Trouble is, on some of the articles that Chris has worked on there are signs of paid editing by people who aren't as open and friendly. For example, on American Association for Clinical Chemistry, there's a new user @Mopolen1884: who has recently added a bit of puffery. On Lab Tests Online, an article created by Chris for the same client, @Random Mesh: cut and pasted whole paragraphs from a press release produced by one Molly Polen. (Random Mesh has also engaged in some hamfisted damage control on Genaro García Luna along with other obvious paid editor accounts.)

Since the American Association for Clinical Chemistry is Chris Abraham's client, is it reasonable to ask him about this activity? His clients pay him to ensure that their articles are neutral and abide by Wikipedia's standards. If other paid editors or employees of his clients make the article less than neutral, does Chris Abraham have responsibility as a Wikipedia editor to ensure that they remain balanced? Puupyreed (talk) 17:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• Hello this is ChrisAbraham and I walked away from all that stuff. I tried to do it well but I really don't know how to get into line properly so, for the time being, I have tried to take a break from even knowing how to do this stuff. Every since I got the schooling, I have lost the Wikipedia clients (for obvious reasons) and have returned to my world of social media marketing and blogger outreach. I'll see if there's any way I can help, if you tell me the way I can best help as being a paid editor on Wikipedia seems to be a catch 22. Between a rock and a hard place. I understand how I have been painted and so forth and I am sorry that any of this has happened. When it comes to Wikipedia, I am honestly scared of my own shadow. Chrisabraham (talk) 17:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I would nominate the Lab Tests Online article for deletion an the basis that it is advertising and is a service with no other notability. As short as the AACC article is, it is full of marketing-type wording and could use scissors taken to it. Words like promote, prestigious, and leading are red flags here. Nyth63 18:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, it AACC's and Lab Tests Online's defense, Lab Tests Online is a free online resource without advertising that's sort of a de facto free encyclopedia for lab tests and medical conditions, so either way, they're a sound and a good organization and I am sorry that my involvement in any way put a blemish on them in any way. I don't think either page deserves deletion but that decision is surely not up to me at all. Chrisabraham (talk) 18:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• • That's not completely true. I actually was friends with Frank Burns (colonel) and know that he died on December 10, 2003, but since I no longer have editing privileges, and because I can't find an Obituaries Notice about his death, I just added it to Talk:Frank Burns (colonel) to let someone else pick it up. I really don't know if I should make direct edits any more, at least for a while, at least until I sort out best practices and how to build back up the trust of the community. Is that the proper way of working with the Frank Burns (colonel) page. Heck, it wasn't even me who created the page, though I did create the The Meta Network page a long time ago, in tribute, hoping it would become sort of a Stone Soup story, where lots of TMN members would join in to add to it. Yeah, that rarely if ever happens like that, does it? Chrisabraham (talk) 18:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Interesting story. Chris, I only know you from this conversation but as the original poster said, you seem like "an all around great guy". I wonder what you think of the "bright line rule" regarding COI editing - my view is that it saves people an enormous amount of potential heartache and respects the community's independence and neutrality. For me the idea that anyone is paid by the subject of an article to "ensure that their articles are neutral and abide by Wikipedia's standards" is highly unlikely, and the example presented here may help to illustrate why. If an above board paid advocate (not abiding, sadly, by the bright line rule) is confronted with edits which appear to be highly biased in favor of the client, what happens if the paid advocate reverts to a less flatting truth? Let's particularly consider the case where for any number of reasons (neglect, plausible but misleading sourcing) the bad edit is likely to stand if the paid advocate does nothing. I find the whole thing just a massive detour down the wrong path in life.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for getting to this so quickly. I appreciate it. Knowing all of this, how can I contribute moving forward? I feel like I am now in a bit of a mine field of my own making. What guidance can you give me? What should I do? Chrisabraham (talk) 22:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Chris, basically just disclose that you have a direct financial connection wherever there is one, and in those cases propose improvements on the Talk page of the article that are neutrally written and well-sourced. IMO the original post was less about Chris, who obviously had no ill-intent and has expressed no interest in continuing, as it was about the behavior of his former clients.

Lab Tests Online looks fine, but I would remove this sentence,"the leading scientific society for clinical laboratory science" which has a very WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim about an organization being the leader in their field cited to a primary source. The article is far too focused on their products and services, rather than material that is more historical in nature, but that would take more work to fix.

On a side-note, you may have an interest in the Social media marketing page. It's filled with marketing jargon and advocacy for the benefits of social media marketing. Our marketing-related pages are really under-serviced and I got the impression that you have a relevant background. Also of relevance is History_of_public_relations#Social_and_digital, which I wrote. CorporateM (Talk) 16:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Holy crap! I can do that? I would love to help improve all of the pages about things I am expert. Do I need to suggest in the TALK or can I actually make changes as long as I am 10000% hobbyist and not sponsored? Chrisabraham (talk) 17:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Well obviously if you don't have a conflict of interest you can edit like any other editor who has no COI. Coretheapple (talk) 18:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

The key thing is this: if you are editing on a topic, any topic, with which you have a potential conflict of interest, make a note of the fact on the talk page. Commit no spam, ever. Stick to uncontroversial, sourced content. And invite a Wikipedian with no financial connection to review your work. Carrite (talk) 18:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, I have been a member of Wikipedia since almost the beginning. However, when you're in marketing for over a decade, and not science, my concept of what I think sounds like promotional rubbish and yours is different. That said, the concept of COI is clear as the Hungarian nose on my face so I will measure for COI thrice from now on and cut only once (and even then, mention my concerns on the talk page). Just because I've been on Wikipedia for a DECADE doesn't mean that I have ever put in my 10,000 hours. So, here's to starting. Thanks, everyone. Chrisabraham (talk) 19:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

@Chrisabraham: Sorry, I responded to your question before checking your contributions and finding that you created your account ten years ago, so obviously you are cognizant of the COI guideline and that COI editors can edit as they wish on subjects about which they have no COI. That being the case, what do you want to know? Coretheapple (talk) 18:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

What is your hobbies Jimbo

Hi Jimbo! Which sources tell about your hobbies (newspapers and magazines) ? About (music - cinema and so on).Thank you! - 95.27.105.181 (talk) 20:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC).

Jimbo's musical taste can be sourced to his one-time DJ gig. His family hobby of flying in presidential helicopters can be sourced to Zig Zag Zine. One publicly-available document indicated that Jimbo's 2009 expenditure on "periodicals/books/tapes/CDs" was $1,000 per month, but that document is not likely appropriate to post here. (See case # 09-011014-FD-12, if you're that interested.) - 2600:1002:B027:7E22:1C29:4062:5DC2:7E0A (talk) 21:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you very much! - 95.29.145.149 (talk) 22:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC).
• I seem to recall reading somewhere that Jimbo enjoys singing in the rain but I can not verify. Probably picked it up from some entertainment-tonite-type blog. . Buster Seven Talk 14:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

This question was also asked on 8 March 2015 by 95.29.140.223. At the time, Jimbo said that he would soon be appearing on Desert Island Discs.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

M. Wales, perhaps have a look at far-reaching

…general observation on the way in which information is cited at WP (settling on the first available, even-if-not-reliable source, rather than working to provide truly reliable, encyclopedic sources), [5], where the case is of citing population data from a self-published blog-type web source, rather than doing the work to source the original governmental data. With regard, Le Prof 71.239.87.100 (talk) 16:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you get an account? It will provide you with more privacy and a stable identity for longer term building of reputation.

I agree with you (and everyone, as far as I can see) that sourcing original governmental data is better than sourcing to a secondary source. In this case, it seems that the website being sourced is that of a respectable historical authority for a local place, rather than a random "self-published blog-type web source", but even so original sources would be preferable. At the same time, Wikipedia is always in a state of flux and improvement - we don't ask that things be perfect from the start - rather, we get started as best we can, and improve from there. Unless there are serious issues at stake - biographies of living people comes to mind, as does information about medicine - we can be relaxed about sourcing uncontroversial information in a suboptimal way for a while. Having the suboptimal source, and having a conversation about it, is a good thing, whereas if we had nothing at all to start with, we'd likely not even have the conversation.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you're right Jimmy on " respectable historical authority for a local place, rather than a random "self-published blog-type web source", this IP is causing a nuisance with the Skagen article which Ipigott and myself promoted to GA.This is supposed to be more than a start though, it's a good article. So is Skagen painters. It's a minor town in Denmark which is never going to have English language sources primarily for population. It uses the local historical society resource which should be about as reliable as you can get for this and is most certainly not a blog. We found what we could, if detailed central government data actually existed for this part of Denmark back centuries then we'd use it, as it is, it seems this is actually based on local government census details anyway. This person won't let it rest, I don't think advising him to create an account is a good idea, unless he drops it and decides to do something constructive.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Le Prof already has an account (User:Leprof 7272). Must not be logged in. Dustin (talk) 21:52, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

"settling on the first available, even-if-not-reliable source, rather than working to provide truly reliable, encyclopedic sources". Rubbish, have you even counted how many decent book sources the article uses alone, and this is just a small Danish town with just 8,000 people. Far better researched to reliable resources than 98% of articles actually.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Debate regarding our newer "Due weight NPOV policy"

Hi Jimbo,

There is an ongoing discussion over at at our NPOV talk page, that I think might interest you. It is about the importance of Neutrality and Balance vs: Proper Weighting based on the proportion of Reliable Sources. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 18:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Global agenda

Wikipedia:Global agenda has been nominated for deletion, and your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Global agenda.
—Wavelength (talk) 16:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipediocracy says "Jump!"; Wikipedia asks "How high?"

All right, it's a troll. Move along. Carrite (talk) 18:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Gregory Kohs seems to be pulling people's strings again. In January, Wikipediocracy published a blog post called "Unpaid Advocacy on Wikipedia". It was an attack on admin @Neelix:, who is also one of the most prolific and polite editors around. That blog post called for the deletion of Neelix's article Stephen Charlie's prostitution of a child and now someone has started a deletion discussion for it. It looks like Wikipediocracy members are trying to influence the vote by arguing with anyone who votes to keep the article. Something needs to be done about this. Puupyreed (talk) 18:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC) Wikipediocracy is a cancer - it's dominated by trolls, griefers, egotists, banned editors with a grudge and washed-up malcontents who spend their time dripping poison into Wikipedia. That said, while they are wrong most of the time, they are admittedly not always wrong. This might be one of those rare occasions. Prioryman (talk) 21:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC) I don't know, I think WPO was right on the money with their exposé of the Gibraltar spamming of the Wikipedia mainpage, for example. There have been and continue to be details first published there of editing abuses and dysfunctionalities — problems that are later rectified. So go ahead with the ad hominem attacks, I suppose, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Carrite (talk) 23:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC) P.S. Welcome to Wikipedia, Puupyreed, nice that you found Jimbo's talk page with your very first edit! In my experience, the WP regulars who hate WPO the most (and are also among its most voracious readers) are the ones whose shady editing have been exposed by WPO. You can tell they've been caught by WPO by the ad hominem attacks they make on WPO's members. To be fair, however, using ad hominem, strawman, and other logical fallacies is a common tactic shared equally among most Wikipedia kool-aid drinkers, not just the ones editing dirty. Cla68 (talk) 23:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC) Lets not forget Prioryman that Wikipedia also has its fair amount of trolls and griefers as well, some of whom are among the admins and Arbistocracy. WPO can be full of bullshit and fire but occasionally they do make some good points. I also agree with Carrite that they frequently seem to break the news on problems within the project (Wifione, Gibraltar, etc.). Its sometimes hard to wade through the bile, but I think its a necessary evil.HanselnGretel (talk) 02:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC) Is there any evidence that WPC "frequently" "break the news"? Dates, please? Or it is just a case of Baader-Meinhof phenomenon? Staszek Lem (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC) (inserting) Simply read Wikipediocracy. Plenty of dates there. Writegeist (talk) 15:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC) P.S. I am the guilty of the AfD in question, and I want to express Puupyreed my sincere gratitude for Streisand effect. I was wondering WTH suddenly... Staszek Lem (talk) 02:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC) I have been known to cruise WPO from time to time looking for junk articles and categories, and biographies in need of suppression or correction. A number of the principals are pretty obnoxious, and the level of stupid commentary can get thick. But an enterprise such as this needs criticism, even if it isn't always fair. And really, the sentiment that "they attack me because I'm doing my job well" is never a good place to be. Mangoe (talk) 11:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC) "Unpaid advocacy" means editors writing about what they want to write about. The alternative does not seem nearly so desirable. When Wikipediocracy complains about "unpaid advocacy", it boils down to them not wanting editors to write about this or that, and most often that is something to do with sex. But I have to say - trashing someone because he is associated with the Salvation Army and wants to improve awareness of human trafficking issues, because that's something "sexual" - that's a new low. It smells like the David Cameron style of politics, aristocratic tin gods who want to censor your casual web browsing while the right of the powerful to molest kids at will remains the last and only right in Britain. Bullies aren't notable for telling the truth, so it's worth being clear that according to his userpage, Neelix has not left the project, but is on a wikibreak until next week; he remains an admin in good standing; and his userpage is protected because various IPs, including one starting 2601:, posted crap like this suggesting that his interest in activist Tara Teng, who calls herself an abolitionist because she wants to free women who are held in a state of slavery, is some kind of "stalking of a child beauty queen". A reason why people object to Wikipediocracy is because they have repeatedly engaged in this sort of attack on good editors, deliberately misrepresenting and distorting every fact. This kind of mindless cyberbullying is a cancer to which all those who do not want unaccountable people in power at the core of some mob telling them what they can edit. I don't know what their agenda is, but whatever it is, it finds no objection to our running yet another Square Enix ad on the front page a few days ago (we've done it at least every six months since 2005 or so) and then they use their prize cannon, OTHERSTUFFDOESN'TEXIST, to trash good volunteer work. I still don't have any idea of the truth about human trafficking. After the backdoor passage of the SAVE Act recently (an amendment with serious free speech issues which may or may not have been addressed by last-minute changes, I'm not sure), I saw reference to [6] which argues that many of the numbers bandied about are massively inflated. God I hope so. But work on articles like the one mentioned here is useful, because even one case like this is too many, and by putting these markers on the ground we help those serious about researching the issue start to get a handle on it. Wnt (talk) 11:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC) You might want to actually read the WPO blog post in question before commenting on it. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 11:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC) The cancerous nature of WPO in general hasn't been challenged, but of that specific blog post, which bits would you hold up as a good use of electrons? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC) Thank you Wnt. I'm glad someone here has the clarity of mind to see Wikipediocracy for what it really is. This kind of mindless cyberbully is literally the worst kind of cancer. Puupyreed (talk) 15:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC) Wikipediocracy is "literally the worst kind of cancer"? Um, no. Even inflated rhetoric needs some sense of proportion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC) Since this discussion was obviously started for the purpose of publicizing that website, I am sure a good laugh was had by all. Coretheapple (talk) 13:12, 7 May 2015 (UTC) Spamming Jimbo's talk page is the one thing they do best. Resolute 14:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC) I think you meant to say "the one thing we do best". JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC) Wikipediocracy is nothing more or less than a message board with a blog attached. Pretending that it is a monolithic group is patently absurd. For what it's worth, this thread is indeed probably a troll. Since we have no accountability for the starting of new or multiple accounts, we'll probably never know if it is a pro- or anti- person getting their giggles. Carrite (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC) If a pro- and an anti-person meet, would they annihilate each other? Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC) Well yeah, a message board, though I find the hivemind on that site being a great deal worse than anything here. I have to say, particularly given the outing taking place/attempted/threatened there, that the fact that a checkuser is an administrator of that site, who has on occasion edited Wikipediocracy in flagrant violation of the COI guideline, makes me absolutely disgusted. One of these days that's going to blow up in Wikipedia's face, and I will have no sympathy. Coretheapple (talk) 16:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC) Until that happens, WO will remain one of the most influential forces in pointing out and fixing Wikipedia's problems, and remain a net positive to the encyclopedia. KonveyorBelt 17:12, 7 May 2015 (UTC) Yes pigs will fly before any action is taken against the checkuser who administers an outing site and occasionally violates COI rules to edit its Wiki article. She can get away with it because of the very administrator abuse that Wikipediocracy users are always railing against. Unless they benefit from it, in which case an abusive administrator suddenly becomes a "straight shooter." This is a point of hypocrisy that is one of the underlying issues that keeps coming up. I think that without that "H factor," and the sort of general double-talk that comes from its defenders and participants, that site would be viewed more favorably. Coretheapple (talk) 17:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC) (e-c)"influential"..."net positive"... Wow... That's sad that someone believes that. I'm sure that's what school teachers and administrators say about the bullies at their schools, too. And then BANG! a kid shoots up the school or takes their own life. Sad, it's only a matter of time before someone does that because of the bullying on Wikipedia or Wikipediocracy. I am not ashamed to say there have been times I came VERY close to doing that myself from the ignorant, just plain evil, words said willy-nilly here with no consequences. I wonder if the time comes what Mr. Wales and the Board's reaction will be to the first casualty. Does the WMF have the funds to fight an unlawful death lawsuit from an estate of considerable wealth? Given that I and others have warned more than a hundred times that this is bound to happen from the bullying allowed to continue, there can be an expectation that the average person should have foreseen there was a problem to fix and by not fixing that problem a death that was foreseeable should have been prevented, thereby making the WMF responsible. Given that no one could possibly know the age of an editor, many cyber bullying laws could be used on Wikipedia or Wikipediocracy should a minor take their life due to wiki-stalking, harrassment, or bullying. I see Wikipediocracy as being even more vulnerable to a lawsuit given its format and vitriol that drips off every page, and they having less resources to fight with. Unfortunately the worst bullies on here will laugh at this post or roll their eyes, those that due are the ones we ALL must watch and not allow to be a part of this Community. There is no room in a collaborative effort for an individual who does not have common human decency and emotions. If you don't see a problem- YOU ARE THE PROBLEM.Camelbinky (talk) 17:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC) Strange, then, that it was Wikipediocracy that was at the forefront of highlighting certain editors (a number now banned) who were using Wikipedia to harrass, stalk or even groom editors who were minors. Wikipedia has been shown to be unable to police its own a number of times now. Black Kite (talk) 18:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC) Camelbinky, if I understand you, you are saying that you have come close to killing yourself because of what people have said to you on Wikipedia. For your own safety (and possibly the safety of others), you should be immediately and indefinitely blocked. The WMF should contact the local authorities so that you can get the help that you need. Puupyreed (talk) 18:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

In case anyone cares

User talk:Jimbo which was a redirect to this page (and easier to type in quickly to get here) has been deleted because it was moved without leaving a redirect behind. In case anyone cares to rectify this, if it even matters.Camelbinky (talk) 21:27, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Scalhotrod has reinstated the redirect. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate User:Scalhotrod doing that, even though it wasn't hard to do I didn't want to do it myself in case there was some sort of arcane rule or reason behind not having the redirect left behind when the page was moved and then some one come along and berate me.Camelbinky (talk) 17:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Can someone do a check user for me?

Can someone find out who the user is who made the sock User:Henry Bellagnome in an attempt to out me? Please. All that has been done is to block the sock puppet, which it still exists and the name is a trademark so it needs to be completely deleted instead of making it look like it's legit and only blocked for "abuse of editing privileges". I want the user behind the sock to be brought to light for the coward he/she is, and if an admin to be de-sysoped.Camelbinky (talk) 02:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)